You can just do what people like Dave Barry did with Peter and the Starcatchers and declare your work a "reinterpretation" and then you don't have to pay any royalties to Great Ormond Street

I have this exact same model, mine's been going about 11 years so looks a lot shinier but also seems to be BIFL

I'm fortunate in that my eyes both work well and it doesn't make me nauseous or distract me at all but I still never feel any benefit from having it and find the glasses a bit annoying to wear. I associate 3D with novelty stuff like Muppets 3D (which is great) rather than actually seeing a film.

Back when it had its 2000s resurgence there were people saying everything would switch to 3D which felt a bit like thinking that the invention of sculptures rendered paintings obsolete.

It's probably that first step that throws me off, how the vaporwave aesthetic came to just be called "aesthetic" like it was the only one and then "aesthetic" moved from that to meaning just...looks pleasing? As best I can tell it now just means "looks stylish", I recently saw an ad for a boardgame which described it as "aesthetic looking" and I think they just meant it looked cool.

...as a further aside I'm also old enough to remember when 2000s style was described as a mash up/pastiche of everything that came before so the fact 20 years later that's still how we're describing the vibe (or aesthetic if you will) is curious - especially as there are still clear differences between the two.

This is a complete aside but this new use of "aesthetic" is really throwing me for a loop. A game can have an aesthetic, a person can be an aesthete but surely it can't just be aesthetic? Unless we're saying that it's a decorative videogame or something.